Reported by
Legal Review by
Edited by
Updated by
Published on
July 21, 2022
July 25, 2022
Edited on
July 21, 2022
On 4th July 2012, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highway issued a gazette notification for the proposed acquisition of land for four-laning National Highway 87 (NH-87). The four-laning proposed is for the section that stretches from Rampur in Uttar Pradesh to Kathgodam via Rudrapur in Uttarakhand. The INR 1335 crore project, spanning 93 km, will be covering towns such as Rampur, Bilaspur, Pantnagar, Rudrapur, Haldwani, and Kathgodam. The project is expected to shorten the journey from Delhi to Nainital and improve road infrastructure by linking famous tourist destinations like Nainital, Ranikhet, and Kausani.
The conflict started after a notification was published in 2012 under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, announcing the union government’s intention to acquire land for the highway's expansion. In 2013, two PILs were filed in the Uttarakhand High Court alleging that the land proposed for the acquisition was more than what was required for making it a four-lane road. The petitioners argued that NH-87 was only 20 metres wide at other stretches, but for the part that crosses through the petitioners' land, a requirement of 60 metres had been made for acquisition. They also claimed they were not given a hearing for raising objections as required under law. The High Court disposed off the two PILs and directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO)/ Competent Authority (Nainital) to address the petitioners’ objections.
In 2014, the government published a notice inviting claims for compensation to be paid to the landowners. By 2018, the SLAO published a notice stating the rate of compensation to be paid to landowners. Subsequently a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court in the same year, by a few individuals and Rashtriya Rajmarg Utpidan Virodhi Sangarsh Samiti (RRUVSS), a local civil society organisation. They represented residents of 17 villages between Lalqua to Kathgodam, including more than 5000 landholders. The petitioners argued that the compensation amount determined by the state was lower than both the prevailing market and circle rates, considering sale deeds of recent transactions. It was alleged that the compensation amount was calculated according to a pre-determined formula, which ignored the demands of the landowners completely. They further alleged that state agencies were trying to acquire large tracts of land to widen and construct roads, which would later be handed to builders at higher rates for commercial purposes. The Supreme Court however, disposed of this petition with the suggestion that petitioners should approach the Uttarakhand High Court instead.
One of the petitioners, Mr. Chandra Prakash Dal, said, “It has been more than eight years; we have spent a lot of money on the matter. But the government won’t listen to us. But we will fight for our land and do our duty. Now the fight is for fair compensation, but we know nothing will come out of it,” he added.
According to Mr. Dal and a few other affected parties, as of now, the land has been acquired for the project. Some landowners have accepted the compensation provided by the government after waiting for the legal battles to deliver justice. Others are still embroiled in legal struggles, mainly in the District Court, fighting for fair compensation.
Demand for more compensation than promised
State agencies should determine the compensation on the basis of current market rates.
Urban and Rural
Common and Private
Forest and Non-Forest
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?
Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)
Status of Project
Original Project Deadline
Whether the Project has been Delayed
Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users
Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict
Source/Reference
Total investment involved (in Crores):
₹
1335
Type of investment:
Cost of Project
Year of Estimation
2016
Page Number In Investment Document:
Has the Conflict Ended?
No
When did it end?
Why did the conflict end?
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Legislations/Policies Involved
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
Yes
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?
What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Incorrect estimation of compensation
Non-implementation/violation of LARR Act
Controversial land acquisition by the government
Non-consultation with stakeholders
Legal Status:
In Court
Status of Case In Court
Pending
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
No
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
Supreme Court: Disposed, High Court: Disposed, DM Court: Pending
Case Number
WPMS No.1173 of 2013, WPMS No.1014 of 2013 (Uttarakhand High Court). Writ Petition (Civil) No. 261/2018 (Supreme Court)
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
No
Reported Details of the Violation:
Date of Violation
Location of Violation
Nature of Protest
Advocacy (for inclusion in courts)
Objections as part of official procedures
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Ministry of Road Transport and Highway, National Highway Authority of India, Special Land Acquisition Officer
PSUs Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?
Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached
Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:
Rashtriya Rajmarg Utpidan Virodhi Sangarsh Samiti
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?
Part of the land acquired for NH.87 in Gaujajali village.
Image Credit:
Urvashi Mahtolia
Part of the land acquired for NH.87 in Gaujajali village.
Image Credit:
Urvashi Mahtolia
© 2023 Nut Graph LLP
All Rights Reserved.
